mardi 26 février 2008

There was little chance that the 9/11 Commission was going to establish the full truth. One reason why: Its Executive Director, the Neocon-loving Philip D. Zelikow, had his own agenda, to wit: protecting the interest of the Bush-Cheney Gang and linking "Al-Qaeda to Iraq." Zelikow had previously written a book with Condi Rice, authored a paper used to justify the preemptive attack on Iraq and worked on Bush's presidential transition team in 2000/2001.

Philip Shenon's insightful "The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation," is a book that I found hard to put down. An investigative reporter for the NY Times, he gives a detailed history of the so-called "official" inquiry, authorized by the U.S. Congress, into the tragedy of September 11, 2001. One of the central characters in this compelling saga is a master manipulator, Philip D. Zelikow. He ran the Commission as its Executive Director. The idea that this guy, who had close ties to Condi Rice, was interested in revealing the full truth about 9/11 is simply preposterous. Why? Because, he had co-authored a book with Rice, worked on President Bush's transition team in 2000/2001, and wrote a Neocon-like policy paper, which was used to justify the horrific Iraq War. Zelikow should have had the words "Conflict of Interest" branded on his Neocon-loving forehead!

Mr. Shenon underscored that in mostly every government commission, like the one for 9/11, it is the Executive Director, who is the key player in shaping the ultimate findings of that body. The author put it this way: "It is a polite fiction in Washington that the reports of blue-ribbon federal commissions are written by the commissioners themselves. In truth, most of the reports are written by a professional staff led by a full time director."

Zelikow denied that he had any conflict of interest in accepting his czar-like role. This was so even after it was disclosed, that as the Executive Director, he made and received numerous telephone conversations from Karl Rove, "Bush's Brain," and that he had several visits with Rice, in the White House.

On another front, Zelikow supposedly had such an "abrasive" personality, that even Henry Kissinger, himself, was leery of him! According to the author: "Zeiklow...had...[an] outsize ego and fierce temper; his anger was a thing to behold, his face growing bright red, his well chosen insults flying in every direction."

The Commission's charter was to establish that the Bush-Cheney Gang's "9/11 Mythology" was holy dogma. [1] Any evidence, no matter how persuasive, showing a differing point of view was outside of the scope of its limited, narrowly focused inquiry. For example, the fact that a structural steel-framed skyscraper, WTC-7, a 47-story office building structure, collapsed in 6.5 seconds, (free fall speed), even though it wasn't struck by any jet airplane, didn't raise an eyebrow for the 9/11 Commission. [2] Also, the highly suspicious conduct of those "Five Dancing Israelis," over in New Jersey, who were caught joyfully taping the WTCs destruction, didn't show up on its monitor either. [3] Experts have submitted that there are aspects of 9/11, many with probative value, that the Commission chose not to investigate. [4]

Prior to 9/11, the Bush-Cheney Gang was given plenty of explicit warnings of an "imminent terrorist attack" inside the U.S. Take one: On July 12, 2001, Thomas Pickard, the acting director of the FBI, met with the then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft. Pickard told him: "We're at a very high level of chatter that something 'big' is about to happen. The CIA is very alarmed..." Ashcroft, a political has-been from Missouri, barked back at the veteran FBI man: "I don't want to hear about that anymore. There is nothing I can do about that." The author emphasized how the White House had also "done so little in response to [the CIA's George] Tenet's repeated warnings of an al-Qadea attack." Which brings me to the proverbial "smoking gun," the crux of the matter, the "Presidential Daily Briefing," (PDB), of Aug. 6, 2001.

Keep in mind, that leading up to that critical period of time, i.e., just before 9/11, that it was Rice who was in charge of the powerful National Security Council (NSC). It was her primary duty to keep Bush informed about any possible terrorist attack in the U.S.

Enter Richard Clarke. He was an expert on counter-terrorism and an important member of the NSC team. He attempted in early 2001, to repeatedly warn the White House about al-Qaeda. Instead of listening to Clarke, however, the author pointed out: "Rice moved Clarke off center stage, in part at THE URGING OF ZELIKOW and the transition team." In any event, the PDB of Aug. 6, 2001, prepared by the CIA, and based on its latest Intel, including Intel from the FBI, specifically warned Bush, V. P. Dick Cheney, Rice, among others, that the threat of a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda, in the U.S., was "CURRENT AND SERIOUS." This crucial document was entitled: "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN THE U.S."

On Sept. 4, 2001, Clarke warned Rice yet again. Here is how he put it: "Are we serious about dealing with the Al Qaeda threat? Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future date when the CSG is not successful in stopping Al Qaeda attacks and hundreds of American lay dead in several countries, including the U.S. What would those decision makers wish they had done earlier? That future day could happen at any time." On top of Clarke's memo, the Commission revealed that "more than 40 PDBs presented to Bush from January 2001 through September 10, 2001, included references to bin Laden." Some of the family members of the 9/11 victims--the author called them, "the Jersey Girls"--regularly referred to Rice as: "Kinda-lies-a-lot" Rice!

As an aside, also in Shenon's book, Sen. John McCain was mentioned in a favorable light. He was one of the first members of the U.S. Congress to insist on an "independent" probe of 9/11. The author then reported how Sen. McCain "despised [President] Bush, and the people around him, especially [Karl] Rove," He blamed the Bush-Cheney Gang for supposed "dirty tricks" that they pulled on him, during the 2000 presidential election. Now, if Sen. McCain would only come clean about the cover-up of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, on June 8, 1967. [5]

Getting back to Clarke. When he heard on Jan. 27, 2003, that Rice's crony, Zelikow was appointed as director for the Commission, he said: "THE FIX IS IN!" The author explained: "Clarke understood that with Zelikow--Zelikow of all people--in charge, there there was 'no hope' that the commission would carry out an "impartial" investigation of the Bush's administration's bungling of terrorist threats in the months before September 11. Could anyone have a more obvious conflict of interest than Zelikow?"

To show Zelikow had his own agenda, he arranged for Abe Sofaer to testify at the Commission first public hearing on March 31, 2003, in NYC. The author wrote: "It seemed odd that he was the Commission's very first expert witness. Sofaer had no special expertise on the events of 9/11. He appeared there, mostly, as an advocate for the American invasion of Iraq--the invasion had been launched a week earlier--and a champion of the [Neocon] concept of 'preemptive defense' or 'preemptive war.'"

If Sofaer wasn't off point enough, Zelikow followed up with another doozy of a witness at the Commission's hearing, in July, 2003. It was Laurie Mylroie of the Neocon-infested "American Enterprise Institute." The author said that Mylroie promoted the dubious idea that "Iraq and Al-Qaeda were effectively one." Who do you think in the Bush-Cheney Gang was the biggest "booster" of Mylroie? If you answered the Neocon Paul Wolfowitz, a "key architect of the Iraqi invasion," you would be right. Her book, "Study for Revenge," was fulsomely praised by him. Mylroie also thanked another Neocon, Irv "Scooter" Libby, then V. P. Cheney's top lag dog, for his help on her book. Libby was later convicted of perjury by a federal jury in the Valeri Plame/CIA-related matter. [6]

As the 9/11 staff prepared its "interim" report for the Commission, Zelikow attempted to rewrite it to "link Al-Qaeda to Iraq." Some of the staffers rebelled and Zelikow, despite being an ultra pushy character, backed off. A few of the staffers considered him a "White House mole." The Commission also refused to buy V.P. Cheney's yarn of "an Iraqi link to 9/11."

The bottom line is: 9/11 didn't have to happen, no matter who really orchestrated the monstrous deed. The Commission's Report basically found "no fault" as far as the Bush-Cheney Gang's role in the tragedy was concerned. [7] Its Report also helped to "reelect Bush as president." The clever Zelikow, with his ties to the Neocon ideologues, got what he wanted, but the country didn't. The full truth about 9/11 has yet to see the light of day.

Finally, Zelikow ended up with a government sinecure--Counselor to the U.S. Secretary of State--Condi Rice! It's all enough to make you want to throw up!

jeudi 21 février 2008

The British newspaper The Guardian reported Thursday that the Foreign Office in London had successfully managed to conceal a reference to Israel in a September 2002 document on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, fearing harm to bilateral ties.

The Guardian says that the word "Israel" was handwritten next to a statement in the "now discredited" dossier which said that "no other country [apart from Iraq] has flouted the United Nations' authority so brazenly in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction."

According to The Guardian, "a senior Foreign Office official" says that the move was aimed at preventing any damage to relations between Israel and the United Kingdom.

The Guardian report also says the Foreign Office made no effort to conceal handwritten notes listing other countries such as the U.S., Japan and Germany in sections dealing with Iraqi belligerence.

According to The Guardian, the decision to remove Israel from the dossier was made by a body called The Information Tribunal, which "adjudicates on disputes involving the Freedom of Information Act." The tribunal heard the case after the Foreign Office reportedly appealed the decision to release the dossier in its entirety.

The newspaper quotes a statement to the tribunal by Neil Wigan, head of the Foreign Office's Arab, Israel and North Africa Group, in which he reportedly said "he did not know who had referred to Israel in the margin."

The Guardian quotes Wigan as saying that, "I interpret this note to indicate that the person who wrote it believes that Israel has flouted the United Nations' authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein."

According to The Guardian, Wigan said that the revelation that Israel is mentioned in the dossier "would seriously damage the U.K.'s relations with Israel."

The Guardian also quotes Wigan as saying that comparing Israel to Saddam Hussein and the "implied accusation of a breach of the UN's authority by Israel are potentially very serious."

He also reportedly said that, "Unfortunately, there is perception already in Israel that parts of the FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] are prejudiced against the country."

A spokeswoman for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown would not comment on the document itself but said: "Our position in terms of encouraging all signatories of the [nuclear] non-proliferation treaty to abide by that remains the same."

"But we also recognize Israel's position needs to be looked at in a regional context, bearing in mind they have neighbors such as Iran who deny the right of Israel to exist."

Succumbing to three years of pressure from freedom of information campaigners, the British government released the once-secret draft document on Monday.

The 32-page document, written by a former director of communications at the Foreign Office, cites intelligence sources to state that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and could easily use them since it had done so before.

The document, amended in the margins, makes no mention of Saddam Hussein being capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a false claim later used in another government dossier to make the case for going to war.

At least a half dozen times in recent months, the suggestion has come from serious people that Jews predominate in the American media--that if we are not dominant, we are a major bloc. In a Yivo event on Jews in journalism I've blogged about, a questioner said that Jews' outsize proportion in the media has granted us "a large influence over power." In his groundbreaking paper on the New York Times's role in shaping American policy toward Israel, Jerome Slater spoke of "religious beliefs and identifications" that affected the Times, and cited former executive editor Max Frankel's admission in his memoir (one also cited by Walt and Mearsheimer): "I was much more deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert."

Lately broadcast reporter John Hockenberry related that he wanted to do a piece on the hijackers' motivation after 9/11 but that NBC executive Jeff Zucker scotched the notion:

"Maybe," Zucker said, "we ought to do a series of specials on firehouses where we just ride along with our cameras. Like the show Cops, only with firefighters."... [H]e could make room in the prime-time lineup for firefighters, but then smiled at me and said, in effect, that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine. [Weiss's emphasis]

Then last month at a forum at the Nixon Center, former Bushie Dov Zackheim said, Jews don't dominate the policy-making process, but the media is a different story...

I don't know that anyone has visited the simple question raised by these statements: Do Jews dominate the media? This is something I know about personally. I've worked in print journalism for more than 30 years. I've worked for many magazines and newspapers, and for a time my whole social circle was editors and writers in New York. I don't know television. I don't know Washington journalism well. I don't know the west coast. My sample is surely skewed by the fact that I'm Jewish and have always felt great comfort with other Jews. But in my experience, Jews have made up the majority of the important positions in the publications I worked for, a majority of the writers I've known at these place, and the majority of the owners who have paid me. Yes my own sample may be skewed, but I think it shows that Jews make up a significant proportion of power positions in media, half, if not more.

Before considering what this means, let me make my experience concrete:

My serious journalism began at the Harvard Crimson in the 70s. A friend said the paper was a Jewish boys club; it was dominated by middle class Jews-- as apparently today there are a lot of Asians. Many of these Jews are now powerful presences in the media. Zucker is one of them. My first paying job was in Minneapolis. Five Harvard guys started a weekly; four of them were Jewish, including the publisher paying our meager salaries. I remember our editor walking the halls parodying the jingle we had on the radio. The jingle went: "We've got the news, we've got the sports..." He sang it as "We've got the Jews, we've got the sports." Funny.

I was hired by a Jewish editor at my next job, the Philadelphia Daily News in 1978, and when I started freelancing in 1981, Jewish Harvard friends got me work at the Columbia Journalism Review and the Washington Monthly. A gentile brought me in at Harper's and the New Republic. It was at the New Republic, a launching pad for any number of highly-successful journalists, that I briefly associated with Marty Peretz, and did a story for him mocking the United Nations, whose judgment he seeks at every turn to nullify because the U.N. is critical of Israel.

Fast forward. In New York, I have worked for a dozen magazines. Most of my editors have been Jewish. Both my book publishers were Jewish. At one point at one publishing house, the editor, his boss, and her boss were all Jewish, and so was the lawyer vetting the work - I remember her saying she would never travel to Malaysia because of the anti-Semitic Prime minister. Oh--and the assistant editor was half-Jewish.

I should point out that I have worked with many gentile editors and writers, and I have never been aware of any employment discrimination against them (though I may not be the best source). In fact, at Spy, the three top editors were all non-Jews and when I used the epithet WASP it was removed from my copy. But that is the exception. Generally it's been Jews Jews Jews. When I hear NPR do a piece with its top political team and both are Jews... when a Jewish friend calls me and gossips about lunches with two top news execs at major publications who are both Jewish and who I've known for 20 years... when a Jewish editor friend tells me that Si Newhouse would be disturbed if Vanity Fair editor Graydon Carter-- who has done such courageous work against the Iraq war-- did anything to expose the Israel lobby... and when I say that my income has been derived overwhelmingly from Jewish-owned publications for years - this is simply the ordinary culture of the magazine business as I know it.

I have some ideas why Jews have predominated, but that's not the purpose of this posting. Last year Senator Russ Feingold, buttonholed on CSPAN about why so many speakers on air were Jewish, said, "Well, we're good at talking..." That'll do for now.

The real issue is, Does it matter? Most of my life I felt it didn't. It's just the way it is, at this point in history. It will change (as Clyde Haberman pointed out at that Yivo event). Jews are the latest flavor of the establishment. In his landmark book, The Jewish Century, Slezkine reports that Jews were the majority of journalists in Berlin and Vienna and Prague, too, in the late 1800s, if I remember correctly.

Now I think it does matter, for two reasons. Elitist establishment culture, and Israel. As to elitism, I worry when any affluent group has power and little sense of what the common man is experiencing. I feel the same discomfort with my prestige-oriented "caste" that E. Digby Baltzell did with his calcified caste, the WASPs--when he called for an end to discrimination against Jews in the early '60s. The values of my cohort sometimes seem narrow: globalism, prosperity, professionalism. In Israel the values are a lot broader. None of my cohort has served in the military, myself included. A lot of our fathers did; but I bet none of our kids do. Military service is for losers--or for Israelis.

So we are way overrepresented in the chattering classes, and way underrepresented in the battering classes. Not a great recipe for leadership, especially in wartime.

Then there's Israel. Support for Israel is an element of Jewish religious practice and more important, part of the Jewish cultural experience. Even if you're a secular Jewish professional who prides himself on his objectivity, there is a ton of cultural pressure on you to support Israel or at least not to betray Israel. We are talking about a religion, after all, and the pressures faced by Jews who are critical of Israel are not that different from what Muslim women who want greater freedom undergo psychically or by evangelical Christians who want to support gay rights. It is worth noting that great Jewish heretics on the Israel question suffer anger or even ostracism inside their own families. Henry Siegman talked about this on Charlie Rose once, I recall--that even close family were not speaking to him over Israel. And I have seen this for myself on numerous occasions. There is not a lot of bandwidth on this issue. Conversations about Israel even inside the liberal Jewish community are emotionally loaded, and result in people not speaking to one another. I lost this blog at a mainstream publication because the editor was Jewish and conservative on Israel and so was the new owner, and the publisher had worked for AIPAC. And all of them would likely call themselves liberal Democrats.

As former CNN correspondent Linda Scherzer has said, "We, as Jews, must understand that we come with a certain bias ...We believe in the Israeli narrative of history. We support the values that we as Americans, Westerners, and Jews espouse. Thus, we see news reporting through our own prism."

There are many American Jewish journalists who have done great independent work re Israel/Palestine. Richard Ben Cramer and the late Robbie Friedman leap to mind. But both these guys are exceptional, and had to overcome/ignore a ton of pressure that most of us would quail under. They had to step outside the Jewish family to do their work...

The result is that Americans are not getting the full story re Israel/Palestine. Slater says this dramatically in his paper--that the Times has deprived American leadership of reporting on the moral/political crisis that Israel is undergoing, one that Haaretz has covered unstintingly. At Columbia the other night, Jew, Arab and gentile on a panel about the human-rights crisis in Gaza all said that Americans are not getting the full story. Ilan Pappe has marveled in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, that the Nakba is all but unmentioned in the U.S.--while Haaretz has sought at times to document it, for instance a former officer saying in 2004 that if he had not helped to destroy 200 villages in southern Israel in '48, there would be another million Palestinians in Israel. To repeat Scherzer's admission: "We believe in the Israeli narrative of history..."

Why does the American press behave differently from the Israeli press? I think the answer is guilt. The Jewish cohort of which I am a part has largely accepted the duty that Max Frankel felt, of supporting Israel. This duty is rarely interrogated, and yet consciously or not we all know that American public opinion/leadership is critical to Israel's political invulnerability; and we think that if we take their fingers out of the dyke, who knows what will happen. That is a ton of responsibility. This responsibility is not executed with special care. Generally, my cohort hasn't been to Israel, hasn't seen the West Bank. But they do feel kinship with Israeli Jews, and--above all--have guilt feelings about the Holocaust, or the American Jewish silence about it during the event, the Jewish passivity; and they are determined not to be passive during Israel's neverending existential crises. And thus they misunderstand Israel and fail to serve their readers.

A White House complaint about a talk-show host's perceived emphasis on Jewish involvement in planning the Iraq war led to a conversation critical to the criminal case against Lewis Libby.

In 2003, Adam Levine, a White House spokesman, called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews to complain that he was "sounding anti-Semitic" by constantly mentioning in his critiques Iraq war architects who were Jewish, according to a Washington Post profile of Matthews published Thursday.

Levine, who was once employed by Matthews, did not believe the fast-talking host was deliberately targeting Jews, but faulted him for constantly citing Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Libby, then a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Libby followed that up with a complaint about what he believed to be Matthews' excessive Iraq war criticism to Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief and higher up the network food chain than Matthews.

Libby claimed in depositions that it was in that conversation that Russert revealed to him Joseph Wilson, a prominent Iraq war critic, was married to Valerie Plame, a CIA operative. At Libby's obstruction of justice trial last year, Russert denied it, and his testimony was critical in obtaining Libby's conviction.

Prosecutors suggested Libby was part of a broader White House conspiracy aimed at discrediting Wilson.

Experts testifying for the defense in the classified information case against two former AIPAC staffers include the two most recent U.S. classification czars.Top classifiers testify for Rosen-Weissman, 03/15/2008

jeudi 14 février 2008

Just as American Free Press predicted over a month ago with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate (stating that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons) the Neocons–as irrational and uncontainable as sharks in blood-tainted water–would not be deterred from getting the war they demand. Since the release of the NIE in early December, Israel’s supporters–both in the Jewish state and in the US–have made it clear by their collective rhetoric that the NIE should be ignored as if it were an issue of Reader’s Digest or a Marvel comic book and that a nuclear Iran ruled by fanatical Mullahs will result in Armageddon.

Now, one of the most dangerous, irrational and power-mad gangsters operating within the Neocon mafia–Normon Podhoretz–is again bringing his gruff, threatening voice to bear on the necessity of going to war against Iran for Israel’s sake. In a recent piece he penned for Commentary Magazine (the printed voice of the American Jewish Committee) entitled Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands the ‘former’ Communist-Trotskyite and unregistered agent for a foreign country makes it clear–Bush needs to bomb Iran, sooner rather than later, and if not Bush, than certainly the next guy (or gal).

In the same typical haughtiness that characterizes all things coming from the Jewish state and its mouthpieces, Podhoretz begins beating the war drum by calling into question the reliability of the world’s most sophisticated intelligence gathering organizations in the US. Citing the fact that the CIA did not foresee 9/11 and the fact that they ‘got it wrong’ with regards to Saddam Hussein’s WMD program, he all but labels the NIE and its authors as wet-behind-the-ears schoolchildren who couldn’t predict cold weather in winter.

Of course, in typical Zionist obfuscatory fashion what he fails to mention is the fact that Israel knew well in advance of 9/11 what was to transpire that day as evidenced by all the Mossad agents arrested in the days and weeks following the event. It should be remembered that some of them were in circumstances as incriminating as filming the Twin Towers coming down and cheering and who, on a television program in Israel, stated that they were sent to America to ‘document the event’. Furthermore, with regards to Iraq’s WMD program and the fact that America’s intelligence services ‘got it wrong’, he conveniently fails to mention that again it was Israel’s intelligence services funneling false information to the US government through official sources and its surrogate agencies including the Pentagon’s ‘Office Of Special Plans’ and Zionist agents such as Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith.

Engaging in the predictable business of fear-mongering that is the main ingredient in all gruesome dishes cooked up in the Zionist witch’s cauldron of war and suffering, Podhoretz depicts an apocalyptic future with a nuclear-armed Iran under the throes of religious fundamentalism. Continuing with the shameless misquoting of Ahmadinejhad that began some time ago, Israel, the apple of God’s eye, would be ‘wiped off the map’. He again fails to mention that Iran, a relatively short distance away and armed to the teeth with missiles of the latest Russian design capable of defeating any anti-missile defense system could in all likelihood achieve that now if it wanted and yet has not.

Following in the tradition of former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban who (giddy as a giggling schoolboy who had just been kissed by the class beauty) was once quoted saying during the first Gulf War that ‘Never before did Israel have the privilege of having 500,000 foreigners fight for her, until now’, Podhoretz dismisses the idea of Israel fighting her own war against Iran. No, the danger to Israel, both physically as well as in the court of world-wide public opinion, would be too great. America must do it, despite the fact that without question horrible events would ensue. Without a hint of reservation or concern for the fact that America is already hated worldwide and her economy is on life-support, he speaks of ‘vast’ increases in the price of oil leading to ‘catastrophic consequences’ for every economy in the world, including America’s, concluding with his acknowledgement of the world‘s backlash against the ‘inescapable civilian casualties’. What he fails to mention but about which he must certainly be aware is that war with Iran means war with nuclear-armed Russia as well, something which does not seem to phase him.

As much as some may be tempted top dismiss Podhoretz and his recent piece as the scribblings of a lunatic with no real power, reality should be allowed to weigh in. Yes, he is a lunatic, but not of the variety normally seen in one of America’s larger cities pushing a shopping cart around and talking to himself. This is the man who predicted with all the cockiness and confidence of a seasoned gangster that Bush would bomb Iran before he left office and for which Podhoretz said he ‘prayed with all his heart’ as a Jew. Besides his own deluded fantasies of death, Jewish world domination and mayhem, as demonstrated on too many occasions Podhoretz is on a first-name basis with the recovering-alcoholic-turned-born-again-Apocalyptic-Christian named George Bush and can at anytime pick up the phone, call the White House and announce he is ‘dropping by for a chat’ and be ushered in with no delay. He has a direct line to the highest echelons within the Israeli government and its intelligence services and is often used by them as an asset in formulating and marshalling American Jewish opinion and activism at appropriate times.

Podhoretz’ latest piece demonstrates without question that he and all who think like him are not just mad, but wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing and traitors to America. As they have demonstrated on too many occasions–from Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty, the theft of America’s most sensitive defense secrets by Jewish spy Jonathon Pollard, 9/11 and the debacle in Iraq they are the most dangerous enemies America has ever had. As much as they may choose their words carefully in trying to appear as allies to the US, the fact is that they are Israelis first, second and third, and care nothing about how the demands of the Jewish state are quickly dragging the once-Christian nation known as America towards the abyss.

If indeed there is anything that Americans better realize soon before all is lost, it is not the religious fundamentalists in Iran or any other Muslim country that should frighten them as much as the religious nutcases in Israel and America who have openly declared themselves to be the physical incarnation of God on earth and who have promised to destroy mankind in a fiery Armageddon should their plans of world-wide domination fail.

dimanche 3 février 2008

It will be interesting to see what Rupert Murdoch does to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, particularly if long-standing rumors that he intends to distance itself at least a little from its thinly veiled Likudist line. This week’s op-ed by Shalem Center senior fellow Michael Oren entitled “Israel’s Lebanon Disaster” was particularly – extravagantly, embarrassingly – transparent in its implied championship of former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who is predictably calling for the resignation of the Olmert government and new elections. An unsparing indictment of Olmert’s performance during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war, the op-ed apparently anticipated a much more damning verdict in the long-awaited Winograd Commission report than what the Commission actually produced, one day after Oren’s screed. Oren, whose bizarre comparison last September (also published in the Journal) of George W. Bush to the Old Testament prophet Jonah as part of the neo-conservative campaign to rally support for the Surge I noted in a September post, even blames the fact that his rifle fell apart during Israel’s eleventh-hour ground offensive in Lebanon on Olmert.

An Israeli nationalist historian who was born and raised in the U.S., is a protege of Natan Sharansky, the director of the Shalem Center’s Adelson Institute, named for its founder-funder, casino multi-billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who reportedly is also the biggest financial backer of Freedom’s Watch, which launched its own campaign to save the Surge at the same time that the Journal published Oren’s Jonah article. It’s really all part of the same Netanyahu network: the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, the Shalem Center, Freedom’s Watch, and you can add the Middle East specialists at the American Enterprise Institute, Sharansky’s One Jerusalem, etc. etc. Aside from the fact that Oren clearly failed to anticipate the Commission’s exculpatory findings, what’s remarkable about this most recent column is the Journal’s willingness to be so openly partisan in Israel’s internal politics. Is Bret Stephens, who, before becoming the Journal’s “Global View” columnist, served as editor of the Conrad Black-owned Jerusalem Post, responsible? Will Murdoch retain him when he assumes full control?

A Word From Sgt. Raymond Turner, USA

"If I were the 'Stalin of America' most of our govt and media would be shot for treason or sent off to a FEMA camp or put to work on infrastructure projects. AIPAC and the Rothschild’s Federal Reserve would be no more. The debt would be erased over night. Lobbies and all political donations outlawed. MOSSAD agents in America would be shot on sight. And if Israel didn’t like it, some of our 81 nuclear attack subs and 11 carriers would finally be put to good use.John Hagee would simply be put on a starvation diet. Pam Geller sent to a concubinage in Saudi Arabia. Alan Dershowitz and Joe Lieberman parachuted into Afghanistan wearing IDF officer’s uniforms and MOSSAD ID. George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld taken to Nevada and tied feet-first to wild stallions. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh cast adrift on a life raft in the western Atlantic at 20 degrees north in the middle of Hurricane season. The entire lot of neo-cons involved in 9-11 would be loaded onto a remote control jet with just enough fuel to make it 500 miles off the east coast at 30,000′. These are only a few of the just ends for the traitorous agents of Israel.This country would be cleaned up in short order."Sgt. Raymond Turner, USA